Armed Portland ANTIFA Assault Driver

[Zincwarrior]

On a tactical/legal basis, it appears the driver did several things poorly.

*Drove a vehicle into a march, blocking the marchers.
*Drove a vehicle into a march where the marchers were armed.
*Proceeded to have a "discussion" with the marchers.
*Proceeded to drive the vehicle through the march.
*Proceeded to then stop and get out of the vehicle to have a discussion with one of the marchers in a face to face manner.

Did I get them all or did I miss anything? I thought this was basic 101 tactics of what not to do from all the way back to 1992?

[JRB]

On a tactical/legal basis, it appears the driver did several things poorly.

*Drove a vehicle into a march, blocking the marchers.
*Drove a vehicle into a march where the marchers were armed.
*Proceeded to have a "discussion" with the marchers.
*Proceeded to drive the vehicle through the march.
*Proceeded to then stop and get out of the vehicle to have a discussion with one of the marchers in a face to face manner.

Did I get them all or did I miss anything? I thought this was basic 101 tactics of what not to do from all the way back to 1992?

Absolutely. But pissing off old guys enough to make stupid mistakes for the camera is precisely the intended goal of a 'march' like that.

What I fear is one of these days they'll piss off the wrong old guy, one that isn't going to make those tactical mistakes, and instead is going to stack a bunch of these brats like firewood because they've simply fucking had it with this bullshit.

[blues]

Absolutely. But pissing off old guys enough to make stupid mistakes for the camera is precisely the intended goal of a 'march' like that.

What I fear is one of these days they'll piss off the wrong old guy, one that isn't going to make those tactical mistakes, and instead is going to stack a bunch of these brats like firewood because they've simply fucking had it with this bullshit.

"That would be tragic."

[HCM]

On a tactical/legal basis, it appears the driver did several things poorly.

*Drove a vehicle into a march, blocking the marchers.
*Drove a vehicle into a march where the marchers were armed.
*Proceeded to have a "discussion" with the marchers.
*Proceeded to drive the vehicle through the march.
*Proceeded to then stop and get out of the vehicle to have a discussion with one of the marchers in a face to face manner.

Did I get them all or did I miss anything? I thought this was basic 101 tactics of what not to do from all the way back to 1992?

You got the first thing 100% wrong. What ever other errors the driver made, the marchers were illegally blocking a public street. The marches were out looking for a confrontation and they found it so everything that resulted from that is on them.

[JRB]

You got the first thing 100% wrong. What ever other errors the driver made, the marchers were illegally blocking a public street. The marches were out looking for a confrontation and they found it so everything that resulted from that is on them.

If only the Police, the DA's, and AUSA's all saw it that way.

[Zincwarrior]

You got the first thing 100% wrong. What ever other errors the driver made, the marchers were illegally blocking a public street. The marches were out looking for a confrontation and they found it so everything that resulted from that is on them.

As Dad would have said, "there's right, then there's dead right."
Whether or not it is legal it is a crowd in the street. Don't voluntarily put your vehicle into a crowd in the street or in front blocking a crowd marching down the street. Rodney King taught everyone that.

[Borderland]

If only the Police, the DA's, and AUSA's all saw it that way.

That would be my point also. Nobody see's anything wrong with terrorizing a neighborhood by shutting down a public street and intimidating drivers with weapons. I would take exception to that just like someone blocking my access to any public street thru force/intimidation unless it was a legal LE/emergency. I'm not a confrontational person but in the light of denying me the right to use a public street in my neighborhood, that goes against my idea of how things should work.

Here's another example. I used to live in N. Seattle. Seattle has always had a gang problem. Several times I noticed gangbangers would block both lanes of traffic to discuss business and to make a point to anyone who wanted to use the street that it was their turf. The same thing is going on here. My street, if you want to use it, come and take it. Is it worth shooting someone or being shot to get it. Probably not, but I think that's where we are, unfortunately. Occupation by force and intimidation.

Some people are just going to push their agenda onto everyone else until they have an incentive to stop.

[fixer]

On a tactical/legal basis, it appears the driver did several things poorly.

*Drove a vehicle into a march, blocking the marchers.

Did I get them all or did I miss anything?

I bolded and underlined what you missed.

[Zincwarrior]

I bolded and underlined what you missed.

Second # 23 (this is the pick up truck video, just to clarify).

[GyroF-16]

*Drove a vehicle into a march, blocking the marchers.

I bolded and underlined what you missed.

Did he? Or was he trying to make use of a public thoroughfare? The kind designed for use by automobiles.
So, was he blocking the marchers, or were the marchers blocking him?

I’m not saying he responded well to the situation. After “negotiating” with the protesters, and being allowed to pass through, he should’ve continued on his way. And perhaps called the police to report being threatened by several young men with long guns while trying to drive down his neighborhood street.